as has just been confirmed on Newsnight, Downing St has denied the story.

If Downing Street were going to do anything, does anyone seriously think they would give it to the Guardian first?

No, obviously, but Evan Harris would.

The truth behind the story is probably slightly more menacing, more menacing even than Evan Harris.

Bear in mind this amendment is to offer women the option of independent counselling, delivered not by the abortion provider, not by a religious organisation, but by one of the 36,000 BACP professional counsellors across the country who are prohibited at present from working with pregnant women.

It’s just an offer, they don’t have to accept it, however, those who have doubts and need help may do and if they do, then so be it, surely it is their choice?

Rumour has it that Evan Harris, abortion and assisted death zealot, is applying huge pressure to the office of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. That would be the no longer an elected MP Evan Harris. It would appear that he believes he has immense influence on Government policy, more influence than elected Liberal Democrat MPs even.

I am led to believe that this story in the Guardian originated from him.

I am quite sure that the office of the DPM would like to have a little more information about what the public thinks before it tried to apply pressure on No10 to put the brakes on an amendment which has such huge support amongst women. When I say women, I don’t include those who write for the Guardian, obviously. Nick Clegg may also like to hang fire awhile and see what else pops up in the papers over the next few days. I can assure him, it will be far more interesting than anything Evan Harris has to say.

Zoe makes far too many assumptions for someone who writes as well as she does. I don't believe for one moment that she actually believes this amendment has anything to do with religion - the clue is in the wording of the amendment which Zoe quotes and specifically the word 'independent'. Zoe fails to mention the 80,000 BACP members who may wish to transfer their skills into the abortion arena and who are prohibited from counselling pregnant women. Counselling is a very professional and growing industry.

The next few days are going to be interesting as the best is yet to come in terms of new information..

Did they just forget to mention the thousands of women who were not offered any counselling at private abortion providers such as Bpas? Or the many thousands who feel they were put on a conveyor belt to the operating theatre the minute they stepped through the clinic door? Nothing to do of course with the fact that the clinic is paid per abortion.

I'll say it again, no organisation which is paid for carrying out abortions and no organisation that thinks it's appropriate to bring God into a counselling session with a vulnerable woman, should be allowed anywhere near the counselling room.

Today has brought another wave of abusive phone messages, emails and letters.

One of yesterday's online contributions is mentioned in my article in today's Daily Mail

Last week the Police rang after tracing the author of one of the death threats and asked me should they prosecute, I said no. I said no because I assume that people write such things and then probably regret it later.

This blog appears to have been written after a weekend of frenetic activity by Evan Harris, opposing my abortion amendment. Maybe Evan Harris has had a word in the ear of Sunny Hundal?

Maybe they should take note of the fact that Evan Harris lost his seat during the election, possibly as a result of his obsession with abortion and assisted suicide?

They may also be interested in the number of Liberal Democrat MPs who are in tune with their constituents and understand that the vast majority of the public are unhappy with the fact that the UK is the abortion capital of Western Europe. Not something for UK PLC to be proud of.

They may also wish to check out the number of Lib Dem MPs who voted for the upper limit to be reduced from 24 to 20 weeks. If there is one thing a Lib Dem is good at, it’s sniffing out which way the wind blows on their own patch. It doesn’t matter what Sunny Hundal says, no Lib Dem MP will dance to the tune of his illiberal mantra only to have to pay the piper on Election Day. No Lib Dem MP wants to be Evan Harris.

Stewart Jackson MP will be appearing on Newsnight tonight to defend the abortion counselling amendment. Why the pro-choicers are attacking an amendment which provides women with more choice is a mystery, however, there it is - the pro-choice lobby opposes choice.

There is almost too much press to link to. Some of the commentators make remarkable assumptions based on almost no substance whatsoever. The Guardian is desperately trying to either paint me as, or link me to, some kind of religious fundamentalism.

I’m not laughing; its way too serious to be funny.

However, as we are onto who supports who, maybe we should begin to ask more pertinent questions with regard to who funds the pro-choice campaign group, Abortion Rights.

It is in fact UNISON and a number of other unions. If I were a union member, I would be asking why that is appropriate or relevant?

What is the difference between religious ideology and political ideology? Is one more distasteful and unacceptable than the other?

The Guardian appears to think I have a relationship with the Christian organisation, CARE. As it happens, I accept no funding or resources from anywhere. I have no association with CARE, as far as I am aware I have never even spoken to anyone from that organisation at any level, ever.

My campaign is run by me, nobody else. The pro-choice campaign is run by the unions.

Has changed her mind about appearing on the Today programme with me tomorrow morning, such a shame. I was really looking forward to asking her to confirm her full financial package on air. I wonder why she changed her mind?

I have spent my afternoon giving interviews and the last two journalists have both told me that Evan Harris 'lost it' on Sky TV today when talking about the Right to Know campaign.
I didn't see it and have no idea what he said, other than what journalists have told me.
Right to Know is not part of my office. I have no idea how they are funded. They are an independent campaign group. They may be ideologically driven, in the same way Abortion Rights who are funded by the unions are ideologically driven in a political way.
If anyone recorded Evan Harris 'losing it' could you please email me a link?

Such a relief to read a cool, calm, appraisal of the proposal to offer women with a crisis pregnancy, independent counselling by Rob Mendick in the Sunday Telegraph.

The comment by Ann Furedi, CEO of Bpas, that 'if her organisation was prevented from advising women about terminations it could be impossible to gain informed consent, as the independent counselling was not compulsory' is frankly, breathtaking.

Up until now we have had the pro-choicers creating the false impression that what we are proposing is compulsory. Outed as being outrageously deceitful, they now spin a reason why not being compulsory and a matter of choice is a bad thing. Not only that, they throw in a scare tactic in the form of a lie with an implied threat, ie, if a woman dares to take up the offer of being counselled by someone who has no financial interest in her ultimate decision, Bpas may not be able to carry out the abortion because they wont have informed consent.

That one comment and tactic by Ann Furedi, CEO of Bpas demonstrates how utterly reprehensible and money grabbing her organisation is, as the fear of losing revenue makes her resort to despicable measures, which includes issuing veiled threats to vulnerable women . If that comment weren't enough, you will hear a quote on one day that 20% of women who approach Bpas, decide not to abort and then at the next interview,15%, depending upon which figure suits. Ann Furedi will also trip of her tongue the fact that Bpas are the largest independent providers of abortion in the UK, whereas MSI, state that this is in fact incorrect and that they are. All this, from a woman who takes a financial package, including pension, car, expenses etc, paid for by the tax payer, circa £200,000 and yet refuses to be transparent and declare exactly how much tax payers money, our money, she is paid. Ann, if you are reading this, instead of bombarding my office with solicitors letters, paid for by the tax payer in your desperate attempt to silence me and prevent me from doing the job I am elected to do, why don't you just print on your web site a breakdown of your financial package?

I suppose we should all be grateful. Ann Furedi, wife of Frank Furedi, humanist and founder of the Revolutionary Communist Party in her own way endorses the reason why no woman in a crisis situation who needs to access unbiased advice, should be allowed anywhere near Bpas. If the woman at the top behaves in the manner Ann Furedi does, what kind of example does that set to all those who work in the rest of the organisation?

Today, I had the misfortune to find myself in the A&E Department of Bedford Hospital. It is one thing observing a hospital department as an MP, quite another as a patient!

The staff were efficient and very kind, in fact, just brilliant and the department was spotlessly clean.

In the midst of anxt, it was a very funny moment when a nurse came out of the office and said “ok, I am the only one who has the courage to ask, are you the MP?”

Bedford is a lovely hospital. It’s a place where people are born, have their babies and meet their maker. It’s a family affair and a hospital we can all be proud of as I, and many of my constituents will vouch.

Today I am quoted in the Financial Times, which is what my blog was going to be about, link is here.. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ from Conservative Home front page. But before I put fingers to keyboard I thought I would take a few hours off, doing that delicious thing you do during a holiday, lie in bed with a mug of tea, reading, guilt free, knowing you can.

My phone rang and I answered, thinking it was one of my girls. It was the Today programme instead, and that was it. All over bar the shouting as they say.... mind you, I've said it before and I will say it again, if I'm trending on Twitter, I'm right.

It lasted and hour and covered a wide variety of subjects. It is fairly obvious that it was intended as a sting on my abortion views, given that this is just about all the interview covers.

As usual, I am compelled to correct a number of points, such as, if the financial package of the CEO of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Ann Furedi, isn’t circa £200,000, then I am sure she will come out and provide us with a breakdown of what her package is and refute my claim.

After all, BPAS is a charity funded by tax payers money. We do have a right to know. The interviewer’s defence of this point is weak to say the least and I am surprised that a Guardian journalist didn’t demand more transparency from BPAS when she contacted them.

The interviewer, Zoe, also states;

To return to those measures: moving guideline responsibility on abortions from the RCOG to Nice sounds fine, but validates the claim that the RCOG is motivated by profit and not female welfare, which I am amazed members are not more furious about. I'm also surprised they're not better defended in parliament, because it is a slur.

Well, Zoe, strangely enough, the reason why they aren't defended is because the claim I make regarding the RCOG committee which draws up the guidelines’ regarding abortion, are true.

I have been articulating these claims for four years now. Don’t you think that someone at the RCOG would have said something by now if they weren’t?

A bit like Furedi, you can’t claim that what I say isn’t true unless you are prepared to rebut my claims with facts. Which they don’t. They just fume and ask their friends in the media to diminish me as a person in order to undermine my claims. They play the woman not the ball.

Zoe, also failed to mention the small percentage of GPs who are members of the BMA, giving the impression that all GPs are members which they are not. But maybe I should have made that point clearer.

It would be too long a blog to fisk each point however, I suppose that given it was the Guardian and an attack on my abortion views and the unflattering photograph were obviously going to happen, I have to say, the interviewer played it pretty much down the line. She hasn’t lied or been personally abusive.

Suzanne Moore and Camilla Long could do with reading and learn how a professional journalist conducts an interview, even when she disagrees with just about everything her subject says.

This picture was taken on Monday evening at the Shefford Tandoori (obviously, in Shefford!) which I will once again enter for the Tiffin cup. I fail to understand why it didn't win last time (Keith Vaz, are you reading this?)

This Tandoori has had the same owner (pictured) and chef since day one, twenty-three years ago. They have been buying their chickens from the same chicken farm in Dorset for all of those twenty-three years.

The food, ambiance, prices, lovely staff, decor, music, wine, coffee, can't be beaten on quality or price and it truly is the only Tandoori to go to in Bedfordshire.

If you’re a Man United fan (yawn!) there is also a rather large picture of the owner and George Best on the wall from when he visited and another of Paul Gascoigne.

I’m not sure what the viewing figures are for the popular Saturday evening talent show, the X-factor, I just know that they are huge. I am amongst them and in a very selfish way, make anyone I am with watch it too, whether they want to or not!

We live in a society which suffers from a poverty of aspiration. Teenagers are low on hope.

The X-Factor inspires and presents a window of opportunity for many young people. It opens doors. This programme has massive influence.

As the article states, this year, one of the judges is Tulisa, who in an interview yesterday with the Sunday Times, spoke about how she has stolen handbags, dressed provocatively at aged nine, lost her virginity at fifteen, took drugs, punched people in the face, and on it goes. A litany of a lost childhood.

Tulisa, now aged 23 will act as a mentor to a large number of teenagers on X-factor.

This is so wrong.

And for anyone who is even getting near to thinking it’s ok, because she has turned her life around and what she is doing is showing teenagers that it’s ok to behave badly, because they can turn it around too, let’s get real shall we?

Tulisa, is the exception to the rule. One in a million. For the majority of young girls who punch people in the face, they end up in prison or a youth offender’s institution and have to deal with all the new destructive problems that presents.

For every nine year old who dresses in a sexually provocative way, the effect could be very different indeed.

Because the X-factor makes its fame and fortune on the back of very young people it should wake up and realise the duty of care and responsibility it carries towards all young people.

X-Factor is an institution and as a result it can no longer behave as it wishes without receiving criticism.

Find judges who can inspire young people. Mentors they can look up to and learn from. Judges you can be proud of and who we know can be trusted to mentor young people in a positive way. Instead of putting bad behaviour on show, demonstrate how people who behave well can triumph too.

You owe the young people of Britain from who you earn your vast fortune that much at the very least.